Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cast Away

This is topic Cast Away in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000100

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 12-21-2000, 10:23 PM:

Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis have teamed up to make what could have been a whopper of a film. However, the depth of this movie will cause many of it's younger audience members to lose interest fast. I enjoyed it for the most part, but it sure wasn't what I expected it to be. The trailer did NOT reveal a good twist at the end...Overall, on a scale of 1-10, I give it a 7. This film will make you think about life, and what you'd do in a gievn situation, which I appreciated. The length could have been trimmed down by 30 minutes and it would have not lost much of the overall effect and would quite possibly allow it to make more money at the box office. 2hrs 40minutes is a long while to sit in front of a screen, regardless of where you are. The second and third reels have virtaully no vocals at all, which makes it seem a little slow, but it gives a great cinematic effect...

Let's hear what the rest of you have to say about this film, which Hollywood is *counting on* to score BIG at the box office.

------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 01-06-2001, 10:23 PM:

***Mild spoilers ahead***

The trailers definitely spoiled the experience of watching this film. I'm surprised anyone enjoyed it (or that this is appearing on some critics' top 10 lists for the year). I'm usually not very good at predicting what will happen in a movie before it happens but PLEASE! What were they thinking with the trailers and TV spots for this movie? The only thing not spoiled was the "surprise" ending, which wasn't such a great payoff anyway. They needed to cut about 15 or 20 minutes of island footage and, instead, give us a satisfying ending.

Just what was the point of this movie? Was it trying to teach us that it's a bad thing to be "married to your job"? That's hardly a fresh, new message. Was it trying to teach us to accept the hand life deals to each of us... or that the human spirit will always fight to survive no matter the odds? Those aren't revolutionary themes either. But some people will certainly be surprised by an affirmation of the sanctity of marriage. Makes you wonder if they didn't change the ending to appease the politicians who were on a rampage against Hollywood a few months ago.

I feel the urge to compare this movie to The Straight Story. For the most part, each movie revolved around a character who had to express lots of things without saying them. In that sense, The Straight Story did a much better job (Richard Farnsworth didn't have any conversations with his tractor). Each movie seems to end right before an important scene is about to take place. Again, I think The Straight Story did it better.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-08-2001, 07:11 AM:

The second trailer just about ruined this movie. The first trailer showed enough- the plane crash and Tom Hanks getting stranded on the island. The second trailer went way too far by showing scenes from when he gets back (the "third act" so to speak.) I enjoy movies a lot more when I don't know what's going to happen!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-19-2001, 11:17 PM:

The length of this film is indcredibly long considering at one point it fades to black and comes up again with the title 'FOUR YEARS LATER'!

They missed SO many opportunities to display Hanks' slow deterioration into insanity and it only takes four weeks of him being back in civilization to be absolutely normal once more...after 1500 days alone on a deserted island with no-one to talk to but a soccer ball. (I did think the soccer ball's name was very well chosen, however.)

If Hanks wins an Oscar for this, I'm never going to watch the Oscars again. Not that he wasn't OK...he was, but there was no material in the script for him to use, much like Denzel Washington's role in 'Hurricane'.

6/10

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 01-21-2001, 08:25 AM:

Anyone remember ''HELL IN THE PACIFIC'' starring Lee Marvin? personally i love that kind of films, can i expect ''CAST AWAY'' to be in the same style? I don't mind seeing a movie that last for over 2 hours with only one guy in it, after all it's Tom Hank's and he is GREAT!

I seem to dislike more and more the movies today that last for 90 min and have 72 killings, 24 cars blowing up, tons of buildings blowing up etc. etc. where are we heading?

------------------
Martin Frandsen
Film crazy!, Big 70mm fan!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-25-2001, 04:25 PM:

>>can i expect ''CAST AWAY'' to be in the same style? I don't mind seeing a movie that last for over 2 hours with only one guy in it<<

Now that would have made for an interesting movie, unfortunately, that movie is not called 'Cast Away'.

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-25-2001, 06:50 PM:

CAST AWAY was the best double commercial i have ever seen in my life.
I felt the serious urge to order a wilson volleyball, and it shipped overnight be Fed Ex, and when it arrives, to cut open my hand and smear myself a new friend.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 01-25-2001, 08:03 PM:

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I hear that there's so little score to the film (about 7 minutes worth, most of it repeated) that the soundtrack is being released with several suites from the composer's previous films just to full up a CD. And just when I thought his collaboration with Zemeckis couldn't get any smaller (the score to What Lies Beneath was less than thirty minutes long). I wonder how much Silvestri got paid to score this movie.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-26-2001, 01:14 PM:

It would have been nice if they stuck to one plane type for the scenes. The movie shows an Airbus A300 awaiting him in the background, Cockpit of an Airbus craft, but the tail mounted engine of either a DC-10 or MD-11 exploding while after the crash. Also to belive that after a water landing that the engine is now running at idle is a little hard to belive as well. Not to mention that the none of the Fed-Ex Airbus craft have the range needed for a pan-pacific route.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-26-2001, 01:31 PM:

Jason: (spoiler ahead)

I've seen "Castaway" twice, and I thought the running/exploding engine after the crash was on a wing. I recall that the sinking tail section had no engine. Guess I'll have to see it again with your keen observations in mind.

What equipment would Fed-Ex use for a cross-Pacific route? I assume someone from Fed-Ex was a technical consultant, and would pick up on this detail.

Regardless, that reel "rocks" as far as the DTS digital sound mix and keeping the tension high. A reel "white knuckle" picture that likely won't be shown by the airlines.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-26-2001, 09:04 PM:

John,

I very well could be mistaken, but I was pretty sure that the engine was on the tail. I belive that for Pan-Pacific routes that Fed-Ex uses either MD-11s or MD-10s (converted DC-10s). Airbus 300s and 310s have a max range of 4050 and 4350 nm (nautical miles) vs the max of 7620 for the MD-11, and 6220 for the DC-10.

Other part is that the scenes of the flight deck, show the plane as having 3 engine throttle controls. Also it has a 3 man crew, acutally 4 people in the cockpit, but the 4th is in the "jump seat".

Does this change the story or the impact of the scene? Not at all. I agree it was very impressive. Just if that you're going to spend millions on a project, do it right. And IMHO Tom Hanks has delivered yet again, annother GREAT performance.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-12-2001, 04:09 PM:

I saw Cast Away last week, and overall i find it a good movie. I do think all the Fed-Ex commercial was a bit to much. The scene where the air-plane is crashing was very well done, a mix of effects and action. But i do not think we will see Tom Hanks getting an Oscar for that one though!